GovernmentExecutive.com

With heavy backing from organized labor, Senate Democrats prevailed Tuesday in keeping a provision in a massive homeland security bill that gives federal airport screeners collective bargaining rights, moving them one step closer to a veto showdown with the White House.

By a 51-46 vote, Democrats tabled an amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., that would have stricken the collective bargaining rights provision from a bill designed to implement unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., crossed party lines to vote with the Democrats.

The provision has heavy backing from labor unions such as the American Federation of Government Employees, but the White House has threatened to veto the bill if it is included.

"It's outrageous that some politicians want to protect union bosses more than they want to protect Americans from terrorist attacks," DeMint said. "This provision was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission; it was recommended by labor unions."

Supporters countered that the provision would improve homeland security by boosting the morale of screeners and decreasing the number of workers who quit. The provision is similar to language in a high-priority bill approved by the House in January to implement the unfinished recommendations.

But 36 Republican senators last week and 146 House Republicans Monday pledged to sustain a veto, numbers sufficient to deny the Democrats the needed two-thirds majority to override.

"We believe that providing a select group of federal airport security employees with mandated collective bargaining rights could needlessly put the security of our nation at risk," the Republicans wrote. DeMint also said the provision could give labor unions that contribute to Democratic campaigns $17 million more annually in new membership dues.

Despite the demise of the DeMint amendment, the provision could face another key vote, as Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking member Susan Collins, R-Maine, has offered an amendment to replace it. Her amendment would give federal screeners more workforce and whistleblower protections, but require the government to study over the next year whether to give them collective bargaining rights.

Meanwhile, senators were gearing up for another battle over how best to distribute billions of dollars in state homeland security grants. Unlike the party-line split over screener rights, this battle essentially pits senators from states with large urban areas against those from smaller and more rural states.

Under current law, each state is guaranteed 0.75 percent of total funding available under the state homeland security grant program. An amendment backed by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, would lower the guaranteed minimum to 0.25 percent. The remainder of the funding would be distributed based on risk and most likely go to states with large urban centers.

The underlying bill would give states a guaranteed minimum of 0.45 percent of total state homeland security grants. But a second bipartisan group of senators led by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., offered an amendment to keep the current 0.75 percent guarantee, and a third bipartisan group of senators led by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., offered an amendment to break states into two groups. Those with an international border would be guaranteed 0.45 percent of state homeland security grants; those without an international border 0.25 percent.

COMMENTS

• Bravo to the Democrats in the Senate. Government workers need bargaining rights now more than ever with the propensity of the Republican Party to undermine worker's rights and protections in favor of unbridled management malpractice. I came into government work from the contract world. In the contract world, even as a manager, I had a far more appropriate level of employee rights and benefits that I have experienced in government work. The primary reason was that our craft employees had labor representation and the union generated an environment of decency and fairness that helped even middle management get fair treatment. I hope that AFGE will grow and strengthen. That would be facilitated if the Democrats will go even further and force the Union Local President position to be funded so that Union Official will have the time to properly attend to union matters. Currently, our AFGE Officials must do much of the Union work on their own time. Conversely, on government contracts, the Union Local President is paid by the company and reimbursed by the government to be a full time Union Local President. That is the way the House and Senate should legislate it for AFGE as well. Then the union will have more strength, which in the long run will be a benefit for government employees and the nation, because treating the nation's workers fairly is a principle of human decency. Given management focus on the bottom line, their own, careers, and control, this often is not the case in a non bargaining unit environment. Generally, the people most opposed to unions and collective bargaining are those people who want unbridled ability to manage however they see fit, regardless of how that translates into employee abuse. NSPS is a prime example. Hopefully the Senate will stay the course they have wisely chosen, override any vetoes, and then go on to overturn NSPS. GovExec.com reader Posted March 7, 2007 10:41 AM
• "Supporters countered that the provision would improve homeland security by boosting the morale of screeners and decreasing the number of workers who quit." This is a laughable assertion. A union would oppose any attempt to discipline or fire mediocre employees. That will worsen homeland security and I don't see how it improves morale. NoAFGE Posted March 6, 2007 11:17 PM